America as the New Kid

At what point did war become not only the answer to America’s problems, but America’s potential problems as well? Why are so many Americans supporting the notion of a preemptive strike against Iran? Iran can’t reach us with nuclear weapons, nor does Iran yet possess such weapons. We don’t even know if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is plans to make or fire such weapons in the first place. Such a preemptive strike is no less ludicrous than arresting a person for a crime that she or he might have the opportunity to commit.

What’s more, invading Iran will only further sour America’s relations with the worldwide, Muslim community. Such an invasion won’t endear us to the rest of the world, at the very least from a financial prospective. Preparing for war can prove beneficial for an economy, while waging one . . . As the common metaphor goes, when America gets a cold, the rest of the world gets pneumonia. America can’t afford another war, and the rest of the world can’t afford for us to do so, either.

I could easily explore all the reasons why a war with Iran would prove far more difficult to wage than those already fought in Iraq and Afghanistan (urban environment, bigger army, less approval from foreign nations, so on and so forth). For the moment, let’s just focus on the dilemma of justification. That ought to come first, anyways.

From where would such justification arrive? Regardless of the nuclear program that Iran may or may not use to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, we stand far from Iran’s firing range, and we already have weapons with which to respond to such an attack. In fact, we already have them sitting within firing range of Iran. At the very least, we have them via Israel.

While no one should have nukes, I can understand Iran’s position, wanting the same weapons that their adversaries possess. For those same reasons, I understand why Iran would take offense that the United States—the country that armed Iran’s enemies with nuclear weapons—would disallow them access to those same weapons. One nation’s paranoia feeds that of its neighbor, like two mirrors set facing each other. Decisions forged in fear rarely yield anything greater than senseless destruction, financial waste, the loss of human life, and resentments that scatter the seeds for the next wars to come.

Many Americans fully support the notion of invading Iran. Few of these people will experience the resulting battles or have to sacrifice family members to such a fruitless cause. Our own intelligence programs (and therefore Israel’s) have twice concluded that Iran demonstrates “no intention of building a nuclear bomb.” Yet so many of us rattle our swords and demand a preemptive strike.

If Iran completed their theoretical, future weapons program, that wouldn’t spell a forgone conclusion of nuclear war. North Korea has nuclear weapons, and yet, surrounded by those considered his enemies, Kim Jong-il never delivered a single atomic blow (besides for an alleged test firing). India and Pakistan couldn’t stop waging wars upon each other until Pakistan gained the nuclear advantage. Pakistan hasn’t fought a war since. That was over thirty-five years ago.

I know that a mushroom cloud sounds scary. Nothing frightens people more than a threat against their loved ones, especially one that they’re powerless to prevent. When people feel powerless, they feel fearful. Not to sound like Yoda here, but fear leads to hate, hate leads to—ah, you already know how this one.

We haven’t a logical reason to perform a “preemptive strike” upon Iran. Preemptive strikes are weapons wielded in kneejerk reaction to fear and anger. You can’t prevent a war by starting one. You can’t end terrorism by justifying the terrorists’ opinions of us.

Everyone from Bill O’Reilly to Vice President Joe Biden has used the metaphor of the new kid at the schoolyard. The new kid must brave a school bully, or he faces becoming the target for every bully at school. The moral is simple. When someone pushes you, push back and push hard. That way, everybody gets the message: Leave me alone. Many pundits have recently echoed this message as a call to arms against Iran. There are holes in this metaphor, though.

If Iran is the bully, it’s worth mentioning that this bully hasn’t yet stomped onto our side of the swing set. Should we just sit here, then? You might ask. Wait for the trouble to come to us? If we march over there with a “get them before they get us” attitude, who’s the bully? Whom will the rest of the world identify as the bully?

In general, the metaphor has several other weaknesses.

1) The argument is inaccurate. If taking the offensive deters would-be terrorists, then why do terrorists continue to target Israel, a country with a strong, offensive policy? How does a country with no offensive policy like Canada remain in one piece? Wouldn’t the bullies fear Israel and target Canada, instead? I could argue that Canada lives under America’s fabled “umbrella of protection,” but then I would have to counter-argue with myself that America has always had Israel’s back, while we allow neighbors such as Mexico to fall to pieces while we turn a blind eye. When it comes to America’s protection, proximity means little.

2) The argument is poorly balanced. There’s a world of difference between fighting the school bully and fighting a war. There’s a world of difference between fighting the school bully and removing all your classmates from their classrooms before sending them off to spend the next ten years fighting the school bully for you. It’s easy to act with valor when someone else has to pay the price.

And the number one reason why this metaphor doesn’t fit:

3) How children settle their differences on the playground shouldn’t serve as a apt example of how adults should settle their own disputes.

I know it’s not in our nature, but sometimes the best thing to do is wait-and-see, take a breather. And while we’re sitting on our butts, the terrorists might get us! Perhaps, but probably not. America possesses countless means for detecting, deterring, and withstanding an attack, not the least of which is our home field advantage. Besides, who wants to live in fear? America will always have enemies. That’s the price of free speech, and it’s a bargain.